hpandey
06-16 11:20 AM
Hi
For most countries you can get your passport renewed by the embassy or consulate in US itself and quite quickly. For e.g in case of Indian embassy you get your new passport within a couple of weeks.
So find out first if your husband's country lets them renew the passport within US and if yes then apply for it asap.
For most countries you can get your passport renewed by the embassy or consulate in US itself and quite quickly. For e.g in case of Indian embassy you get your new passport within a couple of weeks.
So find out first if your husband's country lets them renew the passport within US and if yes then apply for it asap.
wallpaper 2006 Buick Rainier Cxl Augusta
gondalguru
07-26 06:38 PM
Just on the lighter note I wonder if even USCIS ignores that mistake and give you and your co-worker's wife a GC.
And if your co-worker's wife is from a county which is not retrogressed then you can get GC early based on alternate chargebility. Mistake can become boon many times. Just kidding.
Probably you will get RFE and not rejection.
And if your co-worker's wife is from a county which is not retrogressed then you can get GC early based on alternate chargebility. Mistake can become boon many times. Just kidding.
Probably you will get RFE and not rejection.
uma001
05-07 10:30 AM
May I know on what basis you are recommending this. Do you have any legal basis.?
What do you mean by legal basis. He agreed to pay $2 to company A (in email) until the project ends. If this is correct, he should continue paying $2 to company A. Since the OP stopped paying $2 , company A wants to make sure that the project ended.
Ofcourse, Since thee is no contract or agreement between company A and OP, no need to pay $2. But that is not fair on his part. Company A is not asking for 25-40% from billing, He just asked for $2 per hour.
What do you mean by legal basis. He agreed to pay $2 to company A (in email) until the project ends. If this is correct, he should continue paying $2 to company A. Since the OP stopped paying $2 , company A wants to make sure that the project ended.
Ofcourse, Since thee is no contract or agreement between company A and OP, no need to pay $2. But that is not fair on his part. Company A is not asking for 25-40% from billing, He just asked for $2 per hour.
2011 2006 Buick Rainier Cxl Sport
MDix
02-04 10:28 AM
EB2 share for FB spill-overis 6.5k , assuming EB1, EB4 and EB5 don't use them.
more...
willwin
10-01 03:09 PM
Where did everyone get the 10 days estimate from??
As far as I read, the production date for the new system is 10/29.. So, maybe suprises in December bulletin.
I don't think there will be any surprises for the next 9 months as India and China have very limited quota per year. Besides the overflow that happens during the last quarter, I guess it is going to be a snail crawl for EB2.
EB3 India - well, can hibernate for the next 3-4 years.
As far as I read, the production date for the new system is 10/29.. So, maybe suprises in December bulletin.
I don't think there will be any surprises for the next 9 months as India and China have very limited quota per year. Besides the overflow that happens during the last quarter, I guess it is going to be a snail crawl for EB2.
EB3 India - well, can hibernate for the next 3-4 years.
gc_peshwa
12-09 10:54 AM
Thanks IV for the update!
Good news guys...This is getting exciting now. Pleasantly surprised with 59 yes votes. Thats a good number. President Obama may have pulled off a miracle by extracting the GOP YES to DREAM by supporting their agenda of tax cuts for wealthiest Americans. Its politics afterall!
Good news guys...This is getting exciting now. Pleasantly surprised with 59 yes votes. Thats a good number. President Obama may have pulled off a miracle by extracting the GOP YES to DREAM by supporting their agenda of tax cuts for wealthiest Americans. Its politics afterall!
more...
sledge_hammer
09-26 10:15 AM
How inconsiderate of you; you just hijacked someone elses's thread and to top it all you are spamming it trying to get an answer. Your question is also totally unrelated to this thread topic!
Why don't you search the forum for answers and if none is available then post a new thread...
Can the experts please reply to my question? Thanks,
Why don't you search the forum for answers and if none is available then post a new thread...
Can the experts please reply to my question? Thanks,
2010 2006 Buick Rainier CXL Photo 4
prout02
07-30 12:26 PM
I have read in this forum frequent questions about this - legality/enforceability of noncompete clause. Here's a recent court decision from Kansas. It talks about physician practices. No idea if it is applicable to other professions. But the four factors cited in the decision seem relevant.
Interestingly, it talks about 8 states -- Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas -- that have been known to outlaw or significantly restrict such clauses.
Please take it for whatever it's worth.
======================
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/08/04/prsa0804.htm
amednews.com
Kansas court enforces noncompete clause
The court looked at a number of factors in weighing the contract's impact on the doctor, the employer and patient care.
By Amy Lynn Sorrel, AMNews staff. Aug. 4, 2008.
A Kansas appeals court recently affirmed the enforceability of noncompete clauses in a ruling that puts the spotlight on issues that can arise in drafting or signing the employment contracts.
Kansas is among a majority of states that consider noncompete clauses legal, with varying case law or statutes as to when and how the provisions can be used. Eight states -- Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas -- have been known to outlaw or significantly restrict such clauses.
In June, the Kansas Court of Appeals upheld a contract that restricted a family physician from practicing for three years in the same county as the group she left unless she paid the clinic 25% of her earnings during those three years after her termination.
In its decision, the court analyzed four factors to determine the validity of the contract provision. The court looked at whether the restrictive covenant:
* Protected a legitimate business interest of the employer.
* Created an undue burden on the employee.
* Harmed the public welfare.
* Contained time and geographic limitations that were reasonable.
In upholding the noncompete clause, the court found that Wichita Clinic PA had a legitimate interest in protecting its patient base and the investment it made in establishing the practice of Michelle M. Louis, DO, when she joined the group in 1991. The court said the contract did not unfairly restrict competition or patient access because Dr. Louis had the option to continue practicing in the area, where other family physicians were available.
Gary M. Austerman, Dr. Louis' attorney, said the court essentially ruled that "a contract is a contract" while giving "short shrift" to other concerns, including patient care. Dr. Louis plans to petition the Kansas Supreme Court to take her case.
8 states outlaw or significantly restrict noncompete clauses.
"A doctor's right to practice and continue her relationship with her patients in this case is greater than the employer's right to restrain that right," Austerman said. "Patient choice is affected any time you say you can't take care of patients just because of a business relationship."
Austerman said Wichita Clinic -- a practice of nearly 200 multispecialty physicians -- was not harmed by Dr. Louis' departure, and the contract was aimed at protecting itself from competition rather than protecting patient care. He argued that the 25% damages clause imposed an arbitrary penalty on Dr. Louis and was not intended to apply to the income she would make when she left the clinic in 2004.
AMA policy states that covenants not to compete "restrict competition, disrupt continuity of care and potentially deprive the public of medical services." The AMA discourages any agreement that restricts the right of a physician to practice medicine and considers noncompete clauses unethical if they are excessive in scope.
Striking a balance
Gary L. Ayers, an attorney for Wichita Clinic, said the group's contract struck an appropriate balance.
He said the clinic hired Dr. Louis after she completed her residency and helped set up her practice with an existing source of patient contacts and referrals, and by covering administrative and overhead costs. But if doctors decide to leave and take a portion of their patients with them, the group would lose out financially without some reimbursement arrangement, Ayers said. As a result, patient care would suffer.
Restrictive covenants "allow groups to protect their patient base and in turn give them the ability to grow the practice to provide a vast array of patient services," Ayers said.
Doctors on either side of the negotiating table should consult legal counsel to know where their state stands on enforcing noncompete provisions, said Richard H. Sanders, a Chicago-based health care lawyer with Vedder Price.
Employers drafting contracts should make sure time and distance limitations are reasonable and reflect where the practice draws its patient base from, he said. On the flip side, individual doctors should not hesitate to negotiate and ask for a buyout clause or a carve-out leaving a particular geographic territory open.
Jerry Slaughter, executive director of the Kansas Medical Society, warned that doctors should take the contracts seriously. The medical society was not involved in the Wichita Clinic case.
"If properly constructed, [restrictive covenants] are legal and binding, so it's really about the parties going into it understanding it's a contract."
Discuss on Sermo Discuss on Sermo Back to top.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Case at a glance
Was a noncompete clause in a doctor's employment contract enforceable?
A Kansas appeals court said yes.
Impact: Some individual physicians say the provisions restrict their rights to practice in any given area and infringe on patients' rights to choose a doctor. Physicians on the medical group side say the contracts help protect the investment a practice makes in new doctors and its existing business, which, in turn, helps maintain access to care.
Wichita Clinic PA v. Michelle M. Louis, DO, Kansas Court of Appeals
Back to top.
Copyright 2008 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
Interestingly, it talks about 8 states -- Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas -- that have been known to outlaw or significantly restrict such clauses.
Please take it for whatever it's worth.
======================
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/08/04/prsa0804.htm
amednews.com
Kansas court enforces noncompete clause
The court looked at a number of factors in weighing the contract's impact on the doctor, the employer and patient care.
By Amy Lynn Sorrel, AMNews staff. Aug. 4, 2008.
A Kansas appeals court recently affirmed the enforceability of noncompete clauses in a ruling that puts the spotlight on issues that can arise in drafting or signing the employment contracts.
Kansas is among a majority of states that consider noncompete clauses legal, with varying case law or statutes as to when and how the provisions can be used. Eight states -- Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas -- have been known to outlaw or significantly restrict such clauses.
In June, the Kansas Court of Appeals upheld a contract that restricted a family physician from practicing for three years in the same county as the group she left unless she paid the clinic 25% of her earnings during those three years after her termination.
In its decision, the court analyzed four factors to determine the validity of the contract provision. The court looked at whether the restrictive covenant:
* Protected a legitimate business interest of the employer.
* Created an undue burden on the employee.
* Harmed the public welfare.
* Contained time and geographic limitations that were reasonable.
In upholding the noncompete clause, the court found that Wichita Clinic PA had a legitimate interest in protecting its patient base and the investment it made in establishing the practice of Michelle M. Louis, DO, when she joined the group in 1991. The court said the contract did not unfairly restrict competition or patient access because Dr. Louis had the option to continue practicing in the area, where other family physicians were available.
Gary M. Austerman, Dr. Louis' attorney, said the court essentially ruled that "a contract is a contract" while giving "short shrift" to other concerns, including patient care. Dr. Louis plans to petition the Kansas Supreme Court to take her case.
8 states outlaw or significantly restrict noncompete clauses.
"A doctor's right to practice and continue her relationship with her patients in this case is greater than the employer's right to restrain that right," Austerman said. "Patient choice is affected any time you say you can't take care of patients just because of a business relationship."
Austerman said Wichita Clinic -- a practice of nearly 200 multispecialty physicians -- was not harmed by Dr. Louis' departure, and the contract was aimed at protecting itself from competition rather than protecting patient care. He argued that the 25% damages clause imposed an arbitrary penalty on Dr. Louis and was not intended to apply to the income she would make when she left the clinic in 2004.
AMA policy states that covenants not to compete "restrict competition, disrupt continuity of care and potentially deprive the public of medical services." The AMA discourages any agreement that restricts the right of a physician to practice medicine and considers noncompete clauses unethical if they are excessive in scope.
Striking a balance
Gary L. Ayers, an attorney for Wichita Clinic, said the group's contract struck an appropriate balance.
He said the clinic hired Dr. Louis after she completed her residency and helped set up her practice with an existing source of patient contacts and referrals, and by covering administrative and overhead costs. But if doctors decide to leave and take a portion of their patients with them, the group would lose out financially without some reimbursement arrangement, Ayers said. As a result, patient care would suffer.
Restrictive covenants "allow groups to protect their patient base and in turn give them the ability to grow the practice to provide a vast array of patient services," Ayers said.
Doctors on either side of the negotiating table should consult legal counsel to know where their state stands on enforcing noncompete provisions, said Richard H. Sanders, a Chicago-based health care lawyer with Vedder Price.
Employers drafting contracts should make sure time and distance limitations are reasonable and reflect where the practice draws its patient base from, he said. On the flip side, individual doctors should not hesitate to negotiate and ask for a buyout clause or a carve-out leaving a particular geographic territory open.
Jerry Slaughter, executive director of the Kansas Medical Society, warned that doctors should take the contracts seriously. The medical society was not involved in the Wichita Clinic case.
"If properly constructed, [restrictive covenants] are legal and binding, so it's really about the parties going into it understanding it's a contract."
Discuss on Sermo Discuss on Sermo Back to top.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Case at a glance
Was a noncompete clause in a doctor's employment contract enforceable?
A Kansas appeals court said yes.
Impact: Some individual physicians say the provisions restrict their rights to practice in any given area and infringe on patients' rights to choose a doctor. Physicians on the medical group side say the contracts help protect the investment a practice makes in new doctors and its existing business, which, in turn, helps maintain access to care.
Wichita Clinic PA v. Michelle M. Louis, DO, Kansas Court of Appeals
Back to top.
Copyright 2008 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
more...
immigrationvoice1
04-03 06:56 PM
I am a 2nd july ead filer and my ead expires in month of october 08 i have heard that we have to file 4 months before ,do i have to file 4 months before 2nd july or 4 months before expiry of my 1st EAd which is october 08.
please advice
thanks
gcwant
120 days (maximum) from the date of expiry of your EAD. The same applies for AP, if I am not wrong.
please advice
thanks
gcwant
120 days (maximum) from the date of expiry of your EAD. The same applies for AP, if I am not wrong.
hair 2006 Buick Rainier CXL Photo 8
sa.node
02-21 04:16 PM
@Raysaikat, Paskal.
thanks for your prompt replies.
Sorry I didnt make it clear about changing status to visitors visa. I am aware that it will not be an automatic switch.
I am wondering how difficult it is to switch to visitors visa status or to extend H1b for few months? Do people have high success rate or is it full of hassle (trying to extend stay on visitor/H1 status)?
ABIM board is an exam we take after finishing residency. I would prefer to finish it now immediately after residency.
I will try to meet up with an attorney in near future and discuss these issues, will be glad to share any new important info.
thanks.
thanks for your prompt replies.
Sorry I didnt make it clear about changing status to visitors visa. I am aware that it will not be an automatic switch.
I am wondering how difficult it is to switch to visitors visa status or to extend H1b for few months? Do people have high success rate or is it full of hassle (trying to extend stay on visitor/H1 status)?
ABIM board is an exam we take after finishing residency. I would prefer to finish it now immediately after residency.
I will try to meet up with an attorney in near future and discuss these issues, will be glad to share any new important info.
thanks.
more...
desi485
11-11 01:04 PM
Priority Date Current: Curse or Boon ?
I am EB3 India applicant with PD of August 2001 (own not substitution). Have I 140 approved since November 2005 but was only able to file I 485 in June 2007. With same employer for 10 yrs and on 9th yr of H1.
Earlier this year my PD was correct for 2 months but didnt hear anything from USCIS. My PD is current again this Nov and Dec and havent heard anything yet. Called USCIS customer svc and they said cant do anything as processing date is not current (Yes and they are going by Notice date and not Received date for service request). Lawyer says just stay cool and wait. So USCIS has no logic and no order and all we can do is wait for our stars to be aligned and case getting picked up in a sweep. Other than that being current is a curse rather than a boon because
You can not get 3 yr H1 extension if PD is current (only 1 yr).
You can not get 2 yrs EAD if PD is current.
So those dying for PD to be current think again. Its no use having PD current if USCIS is going to be so random and haphazard. It may turn out to be a curse.
Read somewhere that AC21 can not be (or not advisable to) used when PD is current. Not sure how far is this true.
edit: Found one link: Portability Applies to I-485 Applicant without Current Priority Date
(http://www.ilw.com/articles/2006,0321-murthy.shtm)
I am EB3 India applicant with PD of August 2001 (own not substitution). Have I 140 approved since November 2005 but was only able to file I 485 in June 2007. With same employer for 10 yrs and on 9th yr of H1.
Earlier this year my PD was correct for 2 months but didnt hear anything from USCIS. My PD is current again this Nov and Dec and havent heard anything yet. Called USCIS customer svc and they said cant do anything as processing date is not current (Yes and they are going by Notice date and not Received date for service request). Lawyer says just stay cool and wait. So USCIS has no logic and no order and all we can do is wait for our stars to be aligned and case getting picked up in a sweep. Other than that being current is a curse rather than a boon because
You can not get 3 yr H1 extension if PD is current (only 1 yr).
You can not get 2 yrs EAD if PD is current.
So those dying for PD to be current think again. Its no use having PD current if USCIS is going to be so random and haphazard. It may turn out to be a curse.
Read somewhere that AC21 can not be (or not advisable to) used when PD is current. Not sure how far is this true.
edit: Found one link: Portability Applies to I-485 Applicant without Current Priority Date
(http://www.ilw.com/articles/2006,0321-murthy.shtm)
hot 2006 Buick Rainier CXL
pune_guy
06-06 01:11 PM
For H4:
USCIS does not give any document stating the fact that AOS is pending. Although EAD is not required to be present in USA, if H4 is not there, only EAD is proof of valid stay.
485 receipt is proof of AOS
So if SSN is not there or DL (or state ID) is expired then you need EAD - EAD renewal is up to you.
SSN has already been obtained on first EAD. Now the question is why renew EAD if one does not intend to work?
USCIS does not give any document stating the fact that AOS is pending. Although EAD is not required to be present in USA, if H4 is not there, only EAD is proof of valid stay.
485 receipt is proof of AOS
So if SSN is not there or DL (or state ID) is expired then you need EAD - EAD renewal is up to you.
SSN has already been obtained on first EAD. Now the question is why renew EAD if one does not intend to work?
more...
house 2006 Buick Rainier CXL red
xbohdpukc
03-26 04:18 PM
I am not sure how these questions will help? Maybe it will proove that we are high skilled and highly paid members who cannot even contribute $20!!
Everyone's got his/her own circumstances which are so beyond how much you are making. Just a matter of personal priorities which for me, for instance, were to pay my lawyers bills until the moment my employer stepped in and picked up the tab :) The point is if someone's making 100K/annum and says that he can't spare $20 for IV needs -- he/she got different priorities which are not necessarily wrong.
Everyone's got his/her own circumstances which are so beyond how much you are making. Just a matter of personal priorities which for me, for instance, were to pay my lawyers bills until the moment my employer stepped in and picked up the tab :) The point is if someone's making 100K/annum and says that he can't spare $20 for IV needs -- he/she got different priorities which are not necessarily wrong.
tattoo price 2006 buick rainier cxl
kondur_007
09-24 01:30 PM
Hi,
I have received an EAD (I-140 Approved) for future employment through a company that I never worked for. Can I use AC21 to port the GC process to the current employer? Does the current employer need to file a new LC/140?
Please let me know. Thanks for your help.
I am assuming that your I 485 is pending for more than 180 days and I 140 is approved with an employer who you never worked for. You are working for different employer on EAD and want to use AC21 to continue working for that employer:
THIS MAY BE A PROBLEM.
When you never worked for GC sponsoring employer, USCIS can raise the question of actual existance of the job position ever. Burden of proof will fall on you and your GC sponsoring employer that "There was a position for real and it was offered to you and you intended to work indefinitely for that position upon approval of GC". This is difficult to prove if you NEVER worked for that position. This may become grounds for denial of 485 and also may create problems in future (at the time of naturalization).
I would advise you to get a good advise from a competent attorney (it is money worth spent). Starting a new GC process with the new employer may be a safer option, but it may mean several years. Another option is to wait for GC and then upon approval of GC work for the sponsoring employer for at least some time.
Good Luck.
I have received an EAD (I-140 Approved) for future employment through a company that I never worked for. Can I use AC21 to port the GC process to the current employer? Does the current employer need to file a new LC/140?
Please let me know. Thanks for your help.
I am assuming that your I 485 is pending for more than 180 days and I 140 is approved with an employer who you never worked for. You are working for different employer on EAD and want to use AC21 to continue working for that employer:
THIS MAY BE A PROBLEM.
When you never worked for GC sponsoring employer, USCIS can raise the question of actual existance of the job position ever. Burden of proof will fall on you and your GC sponsoring employer that "There was a position for real and it was offered to you and you intended to work indefinitely for that position upon approval of GC". This is difficult to prove if you NEVER worked for that position. This may become grounds for denial of 485 and also may create problems in future (at the time of naturalization).
I would advise you to get a good advise from a competent attorney (it is money worth spent). Starting a new GC process with the new employer may be a safer option, but it may mean several years. Another option is to wait for GC and then upon approval of GC work for the sponsoring employer for at least some time.
Good Luck.
more...
pictures 2006 Buick Rainier #HSC0062P
saibaba
12-05 12:03 PM
It was given on LC copy. Also, some one last year posted a URL to DOL website where all the LC in each particular year where published as a part of public disclosure. I could actually found mine with my company name, date, salary and some guestmates. I will post the URL if I can find it back.
thank you
After carefully reviwing the approved 140 ,I found this DOL/ETA case number D-XXXXX-XXXXX (don know whether I can post this number here) in my approved 140 petition under "Additional Information the petitioner" column...but this particular column has info abt my employer who filed my GC and i'm not sure wther it is the same as my GC labor code...
is this the number u r referring to?
thank you
After carefully reviwing the approved 140 ,I found this DOL/ETA case number D-XXXXX-XXXXX (don know whether I can post this number here) in my approved 140 petition under "Additional Information the petitioner" column...but this particular column has info abt my employer who filed my GC and i'm not sure wther it is the same as my GC labor code...
is this the number u r referring to?
dresses 2006 Buick Rainier for sale
cabal
08-30 12:16 PM
I had asked this question to the immigration lawyer at IV. She said that if you are working for the same company at their offices aboard & go for Consular Processing ( it is the only option as you can not go 485 route) it should be just fine. However, if the company that you are working for when you are abroad and the company that did your GC are not the same thenit is almost impossible to prove that the job exists when you arrive in USA after CP.
It is an interesting question i am also worried about. I was told by my company attorney that i need to file I-140 asap as USCIS is in process of changing how long you can wait with approved LC before filing I-140. Once you have I-140 approved, basically you can come back to the US on an H-1 to work for the company (you will need a new h-1, even if you have a 3 yr. extension based on approved I-140). Then if and when the priority dates become current you should be able to file for I-485
It is an interesting question i am also worried about. I was told by my company attorney that i need to file I-140 asap as USCIS is in process of changing how long you can wait with approved LC before filing I-140. Once you have I-140 approved, basically you can come back to the US on an H-1 to work for the company (you will need a new h-1, even if you have a 3 yr. extension based on approved I-140). Then if and when the priority dates become current you should be able to file for I-485
more...
makeup 2006 Buick Rainier CXL 2006
Sakthisagar
05-19 10:40 AM
No offence here.
There might be some Education evaluation when You first came to US, use that evaluation here too.
I have a question regarding this (no offense here, may be my ignorence)
for H1B. the minimum qualification asked for is Bachelors Degree and expereince. How come you entered US without a Bachelors from india.
There might be some Education evaluation when You first came to US, use that evaluation here too.
I have a question regarding this (no offense here, may be my ignorence)
for H1B. the minimum qualification asked for is Bachelors Degree and expereince. How come you entered US without a Bachelors from india.
girlfriend Salvage Buick Rainier
felix31
12-13 03:32 PM
this is simple. Enforcement results will show that illegal people are bigger threat when they are illegal. Guess what the remedy is, legalize them aka CIR.
I am ready to hear this on the local news "Latest research shows that legalizing the undocumented workers is actually better for the american public" :p
LOL :D :D Whenever I see your signature I realize that I should be working on plan B instead of endlessly hoping to see a GC within my lifetime...:D
I am ready to hear this on the local news "Latest research shows that legalizing the undocumented workers is actually better for the american public" :p
LOL :D :D Whenever I see your signature I realize that I should be working on plan B instead of endlessly hoping to see a GC within my lifetime...:D
hairstyles 2005 uick rainier location of
GCBy3000
07-11 05:02 PM
Why only moderators my dear friend, even members will not like it. 99.9 % of the members are professionals and working for common cause with team spirit..
Dhundhun
06-11 09:10 PM
I E-filed my EAD application and sent the supporting documentation to the location on the confirmation page. To day I see the following notice:
"We attempted to deliver your item at 1:51 PM on June 11, 2008 in MESQUITE, TX 75185 and a notice was left. It can be redelivered or picked up at the Post Office. If the item is unclaimed, it will be returned to the sender. Information, if available, is updated every evening. Please check again later."
Is there something I can do to resolve this?
I sent the application to the following address:
USCIS TEXAS SERVICE CENTER
Atten: E-File I-765 PO BOX: 852401
MESQUITE, TX 75185
How did you sent it? If USPS, PO BOX is supposed to be in their premesis and supposed to be always deliverable.
Is it like Box was FULL? I think, this message is by mistake. BTW, are not we supposed to use full nine digit ZIP 75185-2401
"We attempted to deliver your item at 1:51 PM on June 11, 2008 in MESQUITE, TX 75185 and a notice was left. It can be redelivered or picked up at the Post Office. If the item is unclaimed, it will be returned to the sender. Information, if available, is updated every evening. Please check again later."
Is there something I can do to resolve this?
I sent the application to the following address:
USCIS TEXAS SERVICE CENTER
Atten: E-File I-765 PO BOX: 852401
MESQUITE, TX 75185
How did you sent it? If USPS, PO BOX is supposed to be in their premesis and supposed to be always deliverable.
Is it like Box was FULL? I think, this message is by mistake. BTW, are not we supposed to use full nine digit ZIP 75185-2401
GCVictim
07-09 12:47 PM
Dear Mr. ------:
Thank you for contacting me about immigration reform. The need to fix our broken system is clear, and I appreciate having the benefit of your insight on one of the most important issues of our day.
Immigration reform must ultimately be about improving our system for legal immigration, not about creating new benefits for illegal aliens. Although we are a proud nation of immigrants, we are also a nation of laws. If policymakers will agree that all immigrants must abide by the rule of law, then we can reach a consensus on ways to improve the legal process so that it meets the needs of our society, our economy, and our national security.
During the 110th Congress, the Senate considered comprehensive immigration reform legislation (S. 1639). I had serious concerns that the legislation, as drafted, would have repeated the well documented mistakes of the 1986 amnesty bill. Furthermore, Senators were not allowed the full opportunity to offer amendments to this flawed legislation, and as such, I was one of 53 Senators who voted against the cloture motion to bring S. 1639 to a vote.
I have been working throughout my time in the Senate to develop a solution to this problem that I believe will work. I encourage you to visit my website at http://www.cornyn.senate.gov/immigration for more information regarding the immigration reforms I support. As we consider immigration reform proposals in the future, I will continue to promote these policies, but I will oppose any bill that rewards illegal conduct and encourages further disrespect for our laws.
I appreciate the opportunity to represent the interests of Texans in the United States Senate. Thank you for taking the time to contact me.
Sincerely,
JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator
Thank you for contacting me about immigration reform. The need to fix our broken system is clear, and I appreciate having the benefit of your insight on one of the most important issues of our day.
Immigration reform must ultimately be about improving our system for legal immigration, not about creating new benefits for illegal aliens. Although we are a proud nation of immigrants, we are also a nation of laws. If policymakers will agree that all immigrants must abide by the rule of law, then we can reach a consensus on ways to improve the legal process so that it meets the needs of our society, our economy, and our national security.
During the 110th Congress, the Senate considered comprehensive immigration reform legislation (S. 1639). I had serious concerns that the legislation, as drafted, would have repeated the well documented mistakes of the 1986 amnesty bill. Furthermore, Senators were not allowed the full opportunity to offer amendments to this flawed legislation, and as such, I was one of 53 Senators who voted against the cloture motion to bring S. 1639 to a vote.
I have been working throughout my time in the Senate to develop a solution to this problem that I believe will work. I encourage you to visit my website at http://www.cornyn.senate.gov/immigration for more information regarding the immigration reforms I support. As we consider immigration reform proposals in the future, I will continue to promote these policies, but I will oppose any bill that rewards illegal conduct and encourages further disrespect for our laws.
I appreciate the opportunity to represent the interests of Texans in the United States Senate. Thank you for taking the time to contact me.
Sincerely,
JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator
No comments:
Post a Comment